pacino wrote:I think this merge was unnecessary

That what she said?

(oh snap!)

TenuredVulture wrote:

traderdave wrote:From Wikipedia:

"At the time of the American Revolution, Catholics formed 1.6% of the population of the thirteen colonies."

Sourced from:

Middleton, 95-100, 145, 158, 159, 349n. Also see Maynard, 126-126. According to Lanning, American colonists numbered 2,350,000 in 1776. Of the total white population, only 600,000 men were elegible to bear arms. Michael Lee lanning, THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION 100 (Napierville, Ill.: Sourcebook, Inc.), 193.

My mistake was using the term "Christian" rather than "Catholic".

Yeah, but your response is to the whole "Christian Nation" crap, and those people assuredly don't mean Catholic when they say Christian.

Many of them think Catholics are pagans (and I don't mean the antithesis that is Angel Pagan) that need to be saved. They have pamphlets! Lots of pamphlets!

jerseyhoya wrote:

We'll start rolling out our Ohio poll results tomorrow but there's one finding on the poll that pretty much sums it up: by a 50-42 margin voters there say they'd rather have George W. Bush in the White House right now than Barack Obama.

Independents hold that view by a 44-37 margin and there are more Democrats who would take Bush back (11%) than there are Republicans who think Obama's preferable (3%.)

October 2008 me would have had a really hard time believing this was remotely possible.

2008 you, and pretty much all the rest of us, didn't see we were just getting this economic depression going

I voted for Fred Thompson.

I think it's pretty clear that 2006 was a rejection of the Republicans rather than an endorsement of the Democrats, as was probably also true to a slightly lesser extent of 2008.

I also think it's clear that 2010 will be a (possibly really huge) rejection of the Democrats rather than an endorsement of the Republicans, who are still pretty poorly regarded per public opinion polls. (This will get worse, not better, when Boehner and McConnell are on TV every day.) The biggest commonality of '06 and '10 seems to be that the opposition's voters are intensely fired up, while the majority's voters are severely demoralized.

But it doesn't seem like anybody seriously thinks that the Republicans have an agenda that will get the country out of its economic rut, or do much else other than "investigate" the White House and block everything the president or minority Democrats propose. I guess there's an argument to be made that a Republican Congress and a Democratic president both up in 2012 have shared interest, but I doubt anyone actually involved will see it that way. At best, they'll all be hoping for an economic turnaround without great conviction it's on the way.

So neither party, nor the executive or legislative branches, has anything like the support and confidence of the public. None of these entities or institutions is widely perceived as having any use other than as a vehicle for expressing unhappiness with the other side.

I don't see how this ends well.

jamiethekiller wrote:[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ht8PmEjxUfg[/youtube]

this video is slightly terrifying, though

dajafi wrote:I don't see how this ends well.

Yeah me either, though of course I think it's better for to roll the dice this way than go two more years with the Obama/Reid/Pelosi crew

I think there's a possibility that Obama and a House GOP can work together and do something cool like tax simplification or long term entitlement alterations (esp. if this deficit commission comes up with anything resembling a consensus on either issue) or something along those lines

But it will probably just be two years of posturing and yelling and finger pointing as Rome burns

Edit: An early sign of whether the House GOP plans on being responsible will be what, if any, unifying document they put out as a Contract w/ America v. 2.0, and if there are affirmative, detailed points in it or if it's just "Repeal ObamaCare" and "Make the Tax Cuts Permanent" and "Balance the Budget"

td11 wrote:

jamiethekiller wrote:[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ht8PmEjxUfg[/youtube]

this video is slightly terrifying, though

i am slightly terrified that nobody here even questioned the source. do we have some baited questions, careful editing, actors....??

new left media?

of course there is no agenda with someone who calls themselves new left media. i see that as a totally reputable, neutral news outlet.

and now today boys and girls, we have some right wing propaganda too!


http://breitbart.tv/category/politics/


can anyone guess their specific agenda? the winner will get two gold stars!

lol, yes, because if FOX news had interviewed those people, their IQs would have shot up at least 50 points.

I saw a neat little Tea Party-ish (I'm not positive they were tea baggers, it's just a hunch based on their high brow tactics) table setup outside of a POST OFFICE on my drive home from work today--complete with OBAMA MUST BE STOPPED signs and the requisite Hitler-stache-on-Obama posters. Not sure what their point was other than preventing Obama from killing all the Jews, but then again I didn't stop to ask.

Woody wrote:I saw a neat little Tea Party-ish (I'm not positive they were tea baggers, it's just a hunch based on their high brow tactics) table setup outside of a POST OFFICE on my drive home from work today--complete with OBAMA MUST BE STOPPED signs and the requisite Hitler-stache-on-Obama posters. Not sure what their point was other than preventing Obama from killing all the Jews, but then again I didn't stop to ask.

More likely than not LaRouchies

Woody wrote:I saw a neat little Tea Party-ish (I'm not positive they were tea baggers, it's just a hunch based on their high brow tactics) table setup outside of a POST OFFICE on my drive home from work today--complete with OBAMA MUST BE STOPPED signs and the requisite Hitler-stache-on-Obama posters. Not sure what their point was other than preventing Obama from killing all the Jews, but then again I didn't stop to ask.

Once in Berlin, the Mufti received an enthusiastic reception by the "Islamische Zentralinstitut" and the whole Islamic community of Germany, which welcomed him as the "Führer of the Arabic world." In an introductory speech, he called the Jews the "most fierce enemies of the Muslims" and an "ever corruptive element" in the world. Husseini soon became an honored guest of the Nazi leadership and met on several occasions with Hitler. He personally lobbied the Führer against the plan to let Jews leave Hungary, fearing they would immigrate to Palestine. He also strongly intervened when Adolf Eichman tried to cut a deal with the British government to exchange German POWs for 5000 Jewish children who also could have fled to Palestine. The Mufti's protests with the SS were successful, as the children were sent to death camps in Poland instead. One German officer noted in his journals that the Mufti would liked to have seen the Jews "preferably all killed." On a visit to Auschwitz, he reportedly admonished the guards running the gas chambers to work more diligently. Throughout the war, he appeared regularly on German radio broadcasts to the Middle East, preaching his pro-Nazi, anti-Semitic message to the Arab masses back home.

and you think barack obama's middle name and this guy's last name are nearly the same is just some sort of a coincidence? this is just proof that our most noted scholars choose to teach in front of our neighborhood post office.

Finally some clarity

These commercials against Sestak are uh wow

Down ten among likely voters, mp!

Bayh, Bennett, Dodd, Murkowski

Bad year to be a senator's kid

hoya, I'm seeing what feels like more lib media attention to right candidacies like Carl Paladino's - any sense there's a concerted movement afoot to promote the loose cannons to provoke splits on the right, or is it just business as usual?

EDIT: article's conclusion indicates he would probably be tight with the Phils' Sweeney

jerseyhoya wrote:Bayh, Bennett, Dodd, Murkowski

Bad year to be a senator's kid

What about Quayle?

TenuredVulture wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:Bayh, Bennett, Dodd, Murkowski

Bad year to be a senator's kid

What about Quayle?

not if you're an idiot who has never even anything close to as work a real job or have any experience politically, but have daddy's money and a district handpicked for you that comprises of 2/3 of the registered voters from your respective party.

azrider wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:Bayh, Bennett, Dodd, Murkowski

Bad year to be a senator's kid

What about Quayle?

not if you're an idiot who has never even anything close to as work a real job or have any experience politically, but have daddy's money and a district handpicked for you that comprises of 2/3 of the registered voters from your respective party.

not that he was popular with most, or even all that many, in his own party